I'm so sorry that it's
looking like this is not the year we'll get a president. We had so many
great candidates who had no penii. We really SHOULD have a female
running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like
it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the
better candidates.
In honor of what should have been, I'm re-posting a poem about resistance, along with some of my art of strong women.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
Rise up wild daughter of the woods
dance and romp
struggle and scream
kick and punch
Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist
of and within your
own sweet and glorious dragon Self.
Kick at the stones and
split the sky into
one thousand shards of color
bellow in rage
fight
spin
sing.
Or don't.
Just rest and relax or do
whatever
it is your own unchained soul wants.
It IS your life.
Live it by your rules.
Live it by your rules.
This poet stands with you and your choices.
(Not that you need my approval.)
13 comments:
Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women.
Lord, open the eyes of conservative men like Marshal who have fooled themselves into believing that a sexual predator, lying con man is an acceptable option for a leader of a free nation.
That's my more gracious response.
My more imprecatory response would be:
Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump - and those who defend them, like Marshal - are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings.
Amen.
“I’ve just spent a month watching white male people in particular arguing about who has charisma or relatability or electability. They speak as if these were objective qualities, and as if their own particular take on them was truth or fact rather than taste, and as if what white men like is what everyone likes or white men are who matters, which is maybe a hangover from the long ugly era when only white men voted. It’s a form of self-confidence that verges on lunacy, because one of the definitions of that condition is the inability to distinguish between subjective feelings and objective realities.
Ryan Lizza, fired from the New Yorker for undisclosed sexual misconduct, tweeted, “The Kamala Harris fundraising numbers drive home just how impressive Pete Buttigieg’s fundraising numbers are” when hers were nearly twice as large, and maybe who has money to donate and why white men have always been carried forward and black women have always been held back are relevant things here. One notable thing about the 2016 election is that some of the leading pundits whose misogyny helped shape the race—including Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Mark Halperin, Glenn Thrush—were later charged with sexual abuse or harassment; that is, their public bias was paralleled by appalling private misconduct. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes were outed earlier; heads of networks, directors, and producers have also been outed as serial sexual abusers in charge of our dominant narratives.
“Electability isn’t a static social fact; it’s a social fact we’re constructing. Part of what will make someone unelectable is people give up on them in a way that would be premature, rather than going to the mat for them.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times in all its august unbearability just published this prize sentence in a piece about Joe Biden’s failure to offer Anita Hill an apology she found adequate: “Many former Judiciary Committee aides and other people who participated did not want to talk on the record because they feared that scrutiny of Mr. Biden’s past conduct would undermine the campaign of the candidate some think could be best positioned to defeat President Trump, whose treatment of women is a huge issue for Democrats.” That translates as, let’s run a guy whose treatment of women is an issue, and let’s ignore that treatment because even so we think that he’s best positioned to defeat the guy whose treatment of women is an issue, and also fuck treatment of women, especially this black woman, as an issue, really.
Sometimes these guys with outsized platforms say shit like James Comey did when he complained that his erstwhile classmate Amy Klobuchar was “annoyingly smart,” perhaps because women are not supposed to be like that in his worldview. The framework that intelligence is an asset in a man and a defect in a woman is nastily familiar. Another white man had the temerity to explain to me that “The really smart wonks don’t end up being the media stars needed to win the presidency, i.e., Hillary Clinton—super smart, knows the facts, but comes off as smug and all knowing. I get this from Kamala Harris too.” In other words, he assumes that they are women who know too much and the character defect is theirs, not his.”
https://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-unconscious-bias-is-running-for-president/?fbclid=IwAR2SMmSBjkMJ17_SfxLXZBdHqZ6MfQx7TtoMWPJ3RGo7oFJbatQ9hXzlrmA
If pregnant women do not get $500 in pandemic aid for the fetus from this administration and Republican led Senate, then Republicans really do not think of the fetus as a person.
They just lie in order to use force against others. A habit for 400 years here.
For some strange reason, Marshal keeps posting, "Why do you insist on lying about me" in a post where he is not mentioned.
Marshal is banned from here for his attacks on women and support he's provided rapists and sexual predators by calling women that he does not know filthy names... the sorts of names that rapists and sexual predators use about women... that rape-enabling societies have used to oppress women of all types for centuries. He's not going to do that on my blog and he'll need to apologize for using such terminology on my blog.
But there's no "lie" in my saying that he's said these things. He has said them.
He just disagrees that it lends support to rapists and attacks/oppresses women when he uses those terms.
Just like sexual predators would disagree.
Much less the fact that Marshal is a serial rapist of his conscience.
Marshal said... "Just to be clear, I didn't attack women in general..."
Just to be clear, just because YOU DON'T THINK that your attacks on women that you do not know jackshit about using the same terminology that rapist the sexual predators use to debase women oh, does not mean that it isn't reality. Again look at the data. Look at the research. Listen to experts in the field. Stop thinking that the world revolves around your little bitty predator brain and what tiny oppressive fascist thoughts pop into that little brain.
The world is larger than your own ego. This is the problem with Trump and his supporters. Y'all don't care about experts. If you think it, if it pops into your head, if it supports your previously held worldview, to hell with science, to hell with data, to hell with oppressed women and children and girls who have been raped and oppressed over the years.
THIS is why you are banned from here until you recognize this reality and apologize for your attacks upon all women by your attacks on these two women whom, I remind you again, you don't Know jackshit about.
Your language and ideology is the language and ideology of sexual predators, those who rape and assault women and children. Look at the data. Look at the research.
Marshall laughably has conducted a tiny little made-up whimsical so-called "survey" of his own where he's asked maybe a dozen women if those words harm them. As if his tiny brained, arrogant little nonsense means a single goddamn thing. Marshal said... "as my ongoing survey has revealed, women do NOT feel "attacked/oppressed" to hear either of these words used..."
The megalomania and narcissism is so incredible. No wonder you support the sexual predator, Trump.
Marshal, I will give you one chance and one chance only to comment here. You may answer these direct questions directly and clearly with no obfuscation.
How much do you know about the background of these two women that you have attacked? What do you know about their childhood or teen years that led them to be in the circles of the sexual predator and pervert that YOU support, you deviant?
Isn't it the case that you do not know a single goddamned thing about their background, you God-damned sexual predator defender?
Or here's one other question you can answer directly, do you seriously think that Jesus would be pleased to know that you vote for and support a known liar, corrupt con man and sexual predator?
Or what if the 20 + women who have accused Trump of sexual assault or worse all are telling the truth, and you face them one day with that knowledge.
Will you be prepared to apologize to them for stupidly supporting a known sexual predator?
If and when Jesus rebukes you directly for supporting a known liar, conman and sexual predator, will you have the good sense to repent then?
Answer all those questions with one sentence or less, if you want to come in here.
The reality is, there's very little doubt that Trump is a sexual predator and has oppressed women throughout his life, not to mention he's an utterly corrupt con man and the most dishonest president in our history. There's no doubt about that to anyone with eyes to see. And yet, you support the sexual predator and liar and corrupt conman. That will be a black mark on your soul forever. Repent.
One sentence or less won't get it done, even though I would begin each response with one sentence. I know you won't get the answer you demand, so why ask? Do you want to engage like an mature adult on this issue, or simply default to your fascistic control of what another can or cannot say while you retain the ability to speak in a most unChristian manner? In any case, I've no doubt that I will have to answer your questions at my own blog in order to fully respond in the my typical honest, straightforward manner. Something you totally lack the courage, honor and Christian grace to do yourself.
As I have another moment to kill, I'll see if I can get through your dishonest questions. As I've stated at my blog, I'm entering a 3-4 week period of transition that will put a serious cramp on my blogging abilities.
1. Nothing, and neither do you, which is OK because it doesn't matter to their choices as adults free to do what they like. If course I didn't attack anyone and certainly not worse than you've attacked Trump, me or anyone else who supports his presidency.
2. Nothing, and neither do you, nor do you have any reason to believe they were not totally acting on the compulsion of their own low character, seeing Trump as the perfect victim of their own wicked designs.
3. Yes, but it equally the case that you don't either, and worse, you lack the character to care given you're consumed with demonizing Trump rather than with concern for the women in question.
4. I have complete confidence that Jesus knows my heart and the reason I voted for thus scumbag over the far worse scumbag YOU supported, and that Jesus is totally cool with it, while likely not being cool at all with your attempt to exploit Him to feel good about your unchristian behavior in this matter.
5. If ANY of the women who accuse Trump are found to have a legitimate case, I hope they can have it resolved to their satisfaction, given that's how mature Christian adults deal with such things.
6. No, but this idiotic, dishonestly loaded question requires more than a sentence to fully respond.
7. Jesus won't rebuke me based on my just reasons for voting Trump, and given your politics, it is YOU who needs to repent.
More at my blog in the coming month you non-Christian sad sack.
Dan: "How much do you know about the background of these two women that you have attacked?"
Marshal: "Nothing, and neither do you, which is OK... If course I didn't attack anyone and certainly not worse than you've attacked Trump..."
So, he is as justified in attacking as you are in not because, like you, he knows nothing about them?
Marshal is sick in the head.
And then, "I didn't attack anyone" stuck right next to "and certainly not worse than..." He denies and then contradicts the denial all in 8 words.
Marshal is sick in the head.
He is a serial rapist of his own conscience.
I agree with Marshal: “Dan makes no effort to consider that Trump's childhood was such that his choices as an adult was influenced in a similar manner. Double standard for sure.”
And not just Dan. The whole nation should - just as historians will - examine Trump’s psychological development in order to teach ourselves what kinds of life’s seeds shape a power greedy narcissist who assaults women with impunity, pays off his pregnant affairs for abortions, flirts with crazed dictators for attention, promotes violence against immigrants and citizens, cages children, and yet has a voodoo-like ability to charm 60+ white Americans, many of them evangelical *Christians, so much with hate speech that they want him in charge of a nation?
Not stooping there, we should also examine - as historians and political scientists surely will - what happened in the psychological development of 60+ million white Americans to make them so sick in their conscience that they would override their religious commitments and sheer, basic human decency.
What did happen to you, Marshal, to make you so aggressively and serially rape your own conscience?
Marshal, I'll leave these comments here (and no more) because they're illustrative. Yet you are still banned from here for your attacks on women by using those terms the way you have. Yes, I know IN YOUR HEAD, you think it was just attacks on those two women who you admit you know nothing about. But because of the very real history of oppression of women and girls by men like you and those you defend, the attacks don't just stop with the two women you assault (even while admitting you know nothing about their background).
The points remain:
1. YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history.
2. You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppression/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power.
3. In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend him.
4. I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing. He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche. I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man. In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up.
5. NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming. In THIS world, with the real history of the oppression of women living in our rape culture, TRUMP is the oppressor who is in a place of power and privilege. The women are the ones who have been victimized. These individual women and all women because of men like Trump.
In THAT context, we MUST condemn Trump the president, the man in power, the wealthy spoiled brat who bullies and buys his way into getting whatever he wants and we MUST stand with the women who were victimized by him and by others like him.
By attacking these women with your hateful, rape-sympathizing slurs, you are extending an attack to all women. By defending Trump, you are defending all sexual predators. By giving him a pass (in your vote for him and his defense of him), you are defending all sexual predators.
So, THAT is why your attacks on these women will not stand. Not here and not with men and women of good moral reasoning. You can comment here again WHEN you recognize this and apologize for your attacks on women.
Your first step will come when you learn to recognize what you can't even admit and perhaps don't even see.
Take a women's studies or rape culture class, Marshal. THEN, let's talk.
Until then, your wallowing in ignorance in a manner that continues the millennia-old assault on women and girls everywhere. Repent.
I will thank you for taking the time to answer some simple questions and do so relatively directly. I am sorry, however, that you entirely miss the point.
You admit you do not know these women or their history. And yet, your ignorance and cowardice allows you to attack them in the same way that sexual predators and rapists do. You do not know these women.
If you're not going to take a class and enlighten yourself, then at least repeat that phrase to yourself over and over until you get the point.
"I do not know these women. I do not know these women. I do not know what led them to this point. Because I do not know these women. I do not know these women..."
Jesus did not condemn the "woman caught in adultery," nor did he use abusive oppressive slurs towards her. He did the opposite.
"NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU."
That's also a good place for you to start.
I do not know these women.
Neither do I condemn you.
I do not know these women.
Neither do I condemn you...
And if that fails, then recall the other words of Jesus:
For I was oppressed, poor, marginalized, a victim of rape and harassment by sexual predators... and you did nothing to help. Indeed, you attacked me with vulgar words and accusations while defending the rapist who attacked me.
Depart from me, you accursed one.
Post a Comment